Iran on Edge Of Pogrom?
- Thread starter RonPrice
- Start date
Nino: "The Nazi Party found its way around rulings..." the Nazis did not exist in a nation 4 hours north to south by auto. there ARE groups still espousing the philosophy privately but they are fully infiltrated. They are impotent.
"Ethnic superiorty." Sorry, going to have to ask you to prove that one. As I stated, KACH never , ever was about superiority of anything. It was simply about reestablishing the Jewish State as a religious theocracy. They believed Direct Elections were evil, that they weakened us. They believed ALL Jewish men (meaning over age 13 as it is in our culture) should be fully trained in military skills and often began training them at age 7.They were fully against inter-marriage as are all religious Jews, and many non-religious as well. In all that dogma though one never found any kind of hatred (this does not apply to cells involved in actual terrorist activities like the anti-Societ actions in the States,etc., as they DId hate all enemies of the Jewish People).
Spion: "Margolis." I know of the man. He is a fool. Change his name to Shapiro, Chomsky, Finkelstein, or Shahak and it is one and the same. Of course soemone diametrically opposed politically will denigrate the opponent.
"Kahane's proposals." :
I) False. He only asked that any non-Jew be compelled to respect Jewish Religious Law, along the lines of Iranl. In Iran, even a Jewish woman must wear a hijab. It is law. I do not agree with it but it makes sense, if the majority of the Jewish People wanted it is that is.
II) False again. There was never a proposal to limit residency in Jerusalem to Jews.
III) False again. Reason? It is already a law. In Israel one cannot marry except by religious marriage. For a Jew, that means that both must be Jews. Our faith does not allow for the taking of a non-Jewish spouse. They are changing the law now so that if both are not of a religion, they can get a civil marriage, which had never existed until now. Before the only option was to hop the ferry to Cyprus or head up to Turkey.It is still the only option for a Jew to marry a non-Jew.
IV) False. It is already against Israeli Law, TECHNICALLY (without jail time of course). If one is not married, one cannot have sex. If one is married, it must be with a Jew.
V) That is actually true. Bravo, one out of five! He had a point really , to some degree. There are not that many mixed social activities anyway and that is by choice, by all groups...sadly. He had a point because Jewish Religion forbids such mixing. The thought is that if you do mix, you will fall to the wrong side, and eventually marry outside the group.
VI) Separate beaches? To be honest I do not know. It is sound ass far as our religion goes. We believe in extreme modesty so of course it makes sense given the way non-Jews often dress but I never heard about him or anyone else suggesting this.
"Ethnic superiorty." Sorry, going to have to ask you to prove that one. As I stated, KACH never , ever was about superiority of anything. It was simply about reestablishing the Jewish State as a religious theocracy. They believed Direct Elections were evil, that they weakened us. They believed ALL Jewish men (meaning over age 13 as it is in our culture) should be fully trained in military skills and often began training them at age 7.They were fully against inter-marriage as are all religious Jews, and many non-religious as well. In all that dogma though one never found any kind of hatred (this does not apply to cells involved in actual terrorist activities like the anti-Societ actions in the States,etc., as they DId hate all enemies of the Jewish People).
Spion: "Margolis." I know of the man. He is a fool. Change his name to Shapiro, Chomsky, Finkelstein, or Shahak and it is one and the same. Of course soemone diametrically opposed politically will denigrate the opponent.
"Kahane's proposals." :
I) False. He only asked that any non-Jew be compelled to respect Jewish Religious Law, along the lines of Iranl. In Iran, even a Jewish woman must wear a hijab. It is law. I do not agree with it but it makes sense, if the majority of the Jewish People wanted it is that is.
II) False again. There was never a proposal to limit residency in Jerusalem to Jews.
III) False again. Reason? It is already a law. In Israel one cannot marry except by religious marriage. For a Jew, that means that both must be Jews. Our faith does not allow for the taking of a non-Jewish spouse. They are changing the law now so that if both are not of a religion, they can get a civil marriage, which had never existed until now. Before the only option was to hop the ferry to Cyprus or head up to Turkey.It is still the only option for a Jew to marry a non-Jew.
IV) False. It is already against Israeli Law, TECHNICALLY (without jail time of course). If one is not married, one cannot have sex. If one is married, it must be with a Jew.
V) That is actually true. Bravo, one out of five! He had a point really , to some degree. There are not that many mixed social activities anyway and that is by choice, by all groups...sadly. He had a point because Jewish Religion forbids such mixing. The thought is that if you do mix, you will fall to the wrong side, and eventually marry outside the group.
VI) Separate beaches? To be honest I do not know. It is sound ass far as our religion goes. We believe in extreme modesty so of course it makes sense given the way non-Jews often dress but I never heard about him or anyone else suggesting this.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Spion said:
Now that is a nutter who has very little connection with that thing most of us call reality. Probably holds an opinion that is a minority of a minority of a minority.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I'm talking about the far right in Germany after the war. If de-Nazification was so successful why do we see so many neo-Nazi parties in Germany?
KACH was "never , ever was about superiority of anything"? Are you for real, you even contradict yourself in the following sentence by saying "It was simply about reestablishing the Jewish State as a religious theocracy", which means, in plain English, that they predicated their ideology upon notions of ethnic superiority.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TAE said:
It all goes back to my original point to R18 when I said "You can kill people but you can't kill ideas, no matter how repugnant they are". de-Nazification was meant to eradicate Nazism but it failed. There have been Nazis and fash in the UK since the late 20's and 30's. These parties, while marginalised, have never been proscribed. But Nazism is like some sort of highly contagious and virulent meme: it caught on fast in other countries in the 30's when political leaders in those countries saw the Nazis or the fascists and were impressed with their discipline. The Iron Guard in Romania is a good example of how the Nazi idea crossed national boundaries and took root elsewhere.
Nino: How is a religious theocracy about supremacy? If it does not specifically claim such a thing it is not so. Judaisim , as stated, sees all people as equals under G-D. Jews are not above anyone else in our beliefs.
The UN directed the Israel be a state for the Jewish People. Ergo, was the UN engaging in supremacy?
Spion: Public figures do not enjoy the same protections in terms of libel and criticism as do so called "normal" people. t is not engaging in ad homs, if not talking to any of those 5 public figures but in offering critical discourse.
Then you turn around and call me a junkie and ex-fascist, only one of which is true. THAT is an ad hom.
I have a question though. If you are so sure of your position, why then the need to insult me personally? Cannot your arguments stand alone?
You are asking me to prove Margolis made up those things about Rav Kahane. How does one go about proving a negative? how does one prove soemone did NOT say something? You do not make any sense.
The UN directed the Israel be a state for the Jewish People. Ergo, was the UN engaging in supremacy?
Spion: Public figures do not enjoy the same protections in terms of libel and criticism as do so called "normal" people. t is not engaging in ad homs, if not talking to any of those 5 public figures but in offering critical discourse.
Then you turn around and call me a junkie and ex-fascist, only one of which is true. THAT is an ad hom.
I have a question though. If you are so sure of your position, why then the need to insult me personally? Cannot your arguments stand alone?
You are asking me to prove Margolis made up those things about Rav Kahane. How does one go about proving a negative? how does one prove soemone did NOT say something? You do not make any sense.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Theocracies are about supremacy: the supremacy of one's own 'faith' and the promotion of that religion/culture above any other is supremacist. What else could it be?
Nino: "Theocracy is about supremacy." Is Iran a supremacist nation?
Spion
I hear ya
Margolis is a journalist who published his findings. If he made it up he will have been called on it. So, for once in your life, provide a link, this time to someone accusing him of lying. I'd believe you if you provide one shred of evidence but you never do. You really must believe we are fools to be suckered by your constant un-backed-up assertionsrachamim18 said:
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Spion said:
I am prepared to wager a years salary that such a link does not exist.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
rachamim18 said:
My reply to you was based on your assertion that KACH isn't "fascist" but strives for a theocracy.
This is what you said
Not according to Meir Kahane, who claims to be a holy man. Is [was] he and KACH any better than the theocrats in Iran? Not in my book.
Spion:"Margolis is a journalist." He has been actually but noone is going to bring a case of libel if that is your point. He defamed a ead man seen as a terrorist. Not too many in America want to go there.
It is easy to prove or disprove his claims. Simply go to the K'nesset or even Israeli Foreign Ministry and politely ask for a copy of all MK iniatives for the year in question. I am sure you will not so it is a moot issue.
you might also wish to review Israel's laws because 2 of the claims are existing laws as I have noted. VERY EASY to check.
You know, you seem pretty keen on this whole link thing. Have you provided a linkto show Cluster Munitions can only be delivered by air? It cuts both ways. If you want to mount that pulpit, and argue things most people already take for granted, be prepared to get the same treatment although most know your claim in this case at least is completely wrong.
"Where have I insulted you?" Hmmm..."suckered in by..." or..."junkie ex-fascist." Get a grip please.
Nino: again, stoip relying on propaganda blurbs and start actually researching. Rav Kahane has written many books. He never, ever said Arabs were less than Jews. Religious Jews believe all humans are equal under G-D. Shame you cannot gather as much.
It is easy to prove or disprove his claims. Simply go to the K'nesset or even Israeli Foreign Ministry and politely ask for a copy of all MK iniatives for the year in question. I am sure you will not so it is a moot issue.
you might also wish to review Israel's laws because 2 of the claims are existing laws as I have noted. VERY EASY to check.
You know, you seem pretty keen on this whole link thing. Have you provided a linkto show Cluster Munitions can only be delivered by air? It cuts both ways. If you want to mount that pulpit, and argue things most people already take for granted, be prepared to get the same treatment although most know your claim in this case at least is completely wrong.
"Where have I insulted you?" Hmmm..."suckered in by..." or..."junkie ex-fascist." Get a grip please.
Nino: again, stoip relying on propaganda blurbs and start actually researching. Rav Kahane has written many books. He never, ever said Arabs were less than Jews. Religious Jews believe all humans are equal under G-D. Shame you cannot gather as much.
Similar threads
